American Machine & Foundry Co. v. Golden State Lanes, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 1967 No. Civ. No. 731Published

Before: Gargano

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while vacation pay constitutes compensation for services rendered and is eligible for priority status under Code of Civil Procedure section 1206, the petitioner failed to prove the claims were earned within the required 90-day statutory period.

Issues

Whether vacation pay qualifies as compensation for labor or services under Code of Civil Procedure section 1206.
Whether the petitioner met the burden of proving that the vacation pay claims were earned within 90 days prior to the levy of attachment.
Whether the court should have prorated the vacation pay claims when the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we conclude that a claim for such pay is entitled to the preferred status provided by the section if the claim meets the remaining requirements thereof.”

“section 1206 allows the priority only to claims for work performed for the defendant within 90 days prior to the levy of the attachment, garnishment or execution.”

“Petitioner failed to show that the assigned claims for vacation pay were for vacations earned or accumulated for services performed within 90 days prior to the levy of plaintiff’s writ of attachment.”

GARGANO, J. Respondent, American Machine & Foundry Company, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed an action in the Superior Court of Kern County against Golden State Lanes, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as defendant, and attached certain funds belonging to the defendant. Thereafter, appellant, the Division of Labor Law-Enforcement of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, as the assignee of several labor claims against the defendant, filed a “preferred claim” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1206-1208 with the constable, who was holding the defendant’s money under attachment. Plaintiff denied the claim on the ground that petitioner’s assignors had been paid in full for all labor and services rendered, and for the further reason that the labor claims were false. Petitioner then petitioned the superior court to determine the priority of its assigned claims over plaintiff’s attachment, and the petition was set for hearing by the court. In its petition petitioner described the assigned labor claims as follows:

Name and Occupation of Claimant

Dates Worked

Amount Due

Clyde A. Beckham, Desk Man

2-1/65-4-3/66

$ 221.20

Leva Brasher, Attendant

6-6/65-4-8/66

63.33

Carolyn S. Berry, Bookkeeper

9-19/65-4-8/66

200.00

George A. Berry, Manager

8-1/65-4-8/66

200.00

Laveta M. Christy, Cook

2-23/65-4-7/66

120.00

Betty Davis, Cocktail Waitress

3-1/64-4-7/66

180.00

William L. Hinzo, A-Mechanic

7-11/65-4-8/66

93.00

Donald H. Kirkpatrick, Alleyman

3-8/65-4-8/66

American Machine & Foundry Co. v. Golden State Lanes, Inc.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief